The response from my Senator re filibuster.....suggestions for reply?

This came back from Senator Lamar Alexander:

Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and for letting me know
what's on your mind regarding judicial nominations.

There are a number of vacancies on the federal bench that urgently need to
be filled. I'm working to ensure that we confirm law-and-order judges who
will enforce the law instead of making it up as they go along.

Currently, the nominations of several judicial nominees are being held up
in the Senate. All are exceptionally qualified nominees. In these cases,
I have consistently voted to end the filibusters so that the Senate could
vote on its nominations. The minority, however, wants to change the way
judges are selected. They want to increase the number of votes needed to
confirm a judge from 51, as has been the procedure for over 200 years, to
60. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine our
independent judiciary.

In November 2003, my colleagues and I conducted a 39-hour debate in the
Senate to underline the injustice of blocking a straight up-or-down vote
on these nominations. I believe that this president - or any president -
deserves to have his nominees to the bench debated fully and given a fair
vote in the Senate.

Our judiciary profoundly affects your rights as an American citizen, and
I'll be sure to consider your comments as these issues are discussed and
debated here in Washington and in Tennessee.
Sincerely,

Lamar


My other Senator, Frist, is of course beyond redemption. Alexander is actually a thoughtful gent.....still goes along with the other rupukes, but may not be beyond redempiton....

Of course, he might stop reading at that point.

many of Clinton's nominees? Way more Clinton noms were filibustered than the measly 5 or so the dems are trying to stop. Brown from the 9th circuit is incompetent, substitutes her beliefs for law.

That has become such a unquestioned mantra is has to be wrong.

Deciding on the constitutionality of a law is NOT legislating - it's their JOB.

He's hard core Repug.

Anyway his response is dishonest. The filibuster has been around for years and years and has been a tool both parties have used to block judicial nominees considered out of the mainstream. In the past, merely the threat of filibuster by the minority was enough to convince the majority party to reconsider, then withdraw the nominee. That was back when majorities tried to maintain some measure of bipartisanship. Not so with this crowd. They have no interest in bipartisanship--they merely want to get everything they want at any cost.

Alexander will NEVER vote against the Repug majority on this.

that: 1) The Republican "majority" in the Senate actually represents a minority of the American people; 2) The judicial filibuster has been used extensively by Republicans in the past--it's not a Democratic invention; 3) Several of Bush's nominees have already been rejected by the Senate; their renominations are, in fact, unprecedented; 4) A recent Gallup poll indicates that a large majority of Americans do not approve of changing the Senate rules to clear the way for the appointment of radical right-wing judges to the federal judiciary; 5) Bush's controversial nominees are not "law and order" judges; they are radical right-wing activists whose political agenda is to undo laws protecting Americans' right to privacy, reproductive choice, civil rights law, worker protection law, environmental protection law, Social Security and Medicare. This radical right agenda is not what George W Bush or the current congress ran on in 2004; it is a stealth agenda that the majority of Americans strongly oppose.

But if you want to, I'd simply state that the filibuster has served the country well for over 200 years and that you expect him to support it. You're not going to change his mind. All you can do is remind him that you, as a constituent, don't approve of his stance.

There have been multiple articles recently which prove this.

The FRC (sponsors of the "Just Us" Sunday hate-fest) were in support of filibusters in 1998.

Sen. Frist was in support of blocking nominees from the committee during Clinton's presidency.

Sen. Isakson (R-Ga) is on the record on the Senate floor of speaking to new Iraqi gov't members re: filibusters.

First I'd start by pointing out that in the case of the lifetime appointment of a judge I'd prefer to have one that had the consent of 60% of the Senate as opposed to 51% since as he says our judiciary profoundly affects our rights as American citizens.

If a judge cannot meet that standard then I don't know how much confidence I'd have in them.

Secondly, I'd remind him that the filibuster as a rule has also stood the test of time as an effective check and balance on the power of any one branch or party within our government and again as the appointment of judges profoundly affects our rights as American citizens, I see no need to make special cases regarding judicial appointments regardless of whether the filibuster was ever used on judges before.

Thirdly, I'd state that I am very confused to what the fuss is all about. If so many Senators are against these few nominees, as opposed to the many that have been appointed, then surely there must be 7-10 more people around who are at least as qualified to be nominated for these positions that would be acceptable to a strong majority of the Senate. Wouldn't it be better if there are a number of vacancies on the federal bench that urgently need to
be filled to just drop these nominees in favor of ones that are more palatable.

Lastly, I might remind the Senator (though you are from Tenessee so that's your call), that the 44 Democratic Senators actually represent a larger portion of the population then do the the 55 Republicans. As such I don't see how it is anything but their duty, as representatives of the majority of the population of America, to use every available rule of the Senate, including the filibuster, to try to make sure the will of the majority of the people is upheld. I think they particularly have the high ground on this when polls show that a majority of Americans do not want the Republicans in the Senate to push to remove the filibuster.

So, I would therefore ask the Senator that he strongly consider the future of America as well as his own future in the Senate and make the right choices for all Americans regarding judicial nominations.

Hope this is helpful.

Call his office at 1-800-SOB-USOB. Express your dismay at receiving a form letter/canned response after having taken the time to communicate with him--YOUR representative.

Re: "The minority, however, wants to change the way
judges are selected. They want to increase the number of votes needed to confirm a judge from 51, as has been the procedure for over 200 years, to 60." Provide a no holds barred tongue lashing for the misrepresentation of the statement. Tell him you're not going to swallow his extreme partisan rhetoric OR lies.

Then, thank him for his assistance with putting more money back into your pocket...That is, the money that you will definitely NOT be sending toward support for his continuation in elected office. *click*

It is really a shame....this blue corner (Memphis) of a decidedly red state has no representation in the Senate. Even Harold Ford Jr., (Memphian) feels a need to shade things a little red to get ahead....even though he would never stand a chance for statewide office